Hate Crime Bill Passed

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Just now, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Reported.

Fucking snitch.

[alta-pete]

3 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

^^^^^

Big boned, myopic with alopecia.

 

Just now, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Reported.

You boys missed the open goal about something something Rangers tap. 

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

If you’ve been a suspect in a crime and its proven that you’ve not committed a crime or been subject of a malicious complaint then the crime report is marked ‘no crime’ and it would not negatively impact a disclosure check. 

Sounds logical and protects the privacy of anyone who was maliciously accused.

42 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

Unless something has changed, all Non Crime Hate Incidents are recorded on the Police Scotland Vulnerable Persons Database, which retains information in relation to a range of concerns including a detailed ‘synopsis of the incident and all known nominals’.

This information may be subject to disclosure under an enhanced criminal records check. Police Scotland also share information about people on the VPD with other public bodies such as council social work and education departments, the Crown Office and Prosecution Service, and the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration

Am I reading your reply correctly that you are saying that the disclosure system already gives the details of anyone - including those maliciously accused and cleared - to whoever requests an enhanced check?

 

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Just now, alta-pete said:

 

You boys missed the open goal about something something Rangers tap. 

That's the least of your worries, apparently.

[alta-pete]

2 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

That's the least of your worries, apparently.

Don’t i know it.

[Peil]

3 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Sounds logical and protects the privacy of anyone who was maliciously accused.

Am I reading your reply correctly that you are saying that the disclosure system already gives the details of anyone - including those maliciously accused and cleared - to whoever requests an enhanced check?

 

That's been my understanding with enhanced checks, particularly since the Soham murders. The default position is record everything and don't dare delete it, less the papers find out and blame some social worker. 

[Scary Bear]

Anyone fallen foul of this new law yet?

 

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, superbigal said:

Are baldy, specky fat c***s  protected from abuse  

Tam Cowan found

[Leith Green]

7 minutes ago, Peil said:

That's been my understanding with enhanced checks, particularly since the Soham murders. The default position is record everything and don't dare delete it, less the papers find out and blame some social worker. 

The question I asked didnt relate to recording it - I think its a given that the detail of a complaint and outcome is recorded by Police Scotland. 

I was asking  @Mr Waldo to clarify what he said - i.e. that this detail is (already) routinely revealed to any organisation who ask for an enhanced check - even if no crime was recorded.

[Freedom Farter]

20 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

I think the culture wars in general are very reactionary and this legislation has been turned into another tiresome part of the culture wars. 

Everything is reduced to individual rights. Class dynamics and collective rights are sidelined for the most part. I'm interested in improving folk's material conditions and while I do support formal discouragement of certain types of insult, that can give a false sense of society civilising while the material injustices continue on. 

[alta-pete]

6 hours ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Rowling appears to have gone full Linehan. A pathetic old woman.

Reported for misogyny. 

[Binos]

1 hour ago, Theyellowbox said:

Bino's is showing he has completely missed the point whilst not actually having a clue what he is talking about.

The whole debate is around the Scottish Parliament passing legislation. If that is not having power then you completely misunderstand the whole point.

If they had the powers to pass legislation that effected economic levers they would be doing so

But as they don't they occupy their time on pointless shite

just trying to justify their own existence 

 

Edited April 1 by Binos

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, Binos said:

If they had the powers to pass legislation that effected economic levers they would be doing so

But as they don't they occupy their time on pointless shite

just trying to justify their own existence 

 

You make a good point about the need for independence. I agree with you, Scotland should become independent and build on the already devolved powers we have. 

[alta-pete]

12 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

You make a good point about the need for independence. I agree with you, Scotland should become independent and build on the already devolved powers we have. 

It’d be a more convincing position for building on Devolution if these daft c***s weren’t getting themselves tied up with this, bottle deposits, an inability to deal with drug deaths and ferry procurement. 

But hey ho, independence first and suddenly all the latent potential in this country will magically be unleashed. And these trivialities will all be forgotten. 

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

Fair enough - took it from this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68655579

In fairness Murdo Fraser doesn't claim he's on a list or that it would be shared with anyone either. He's complaining that the investigation has been recorded at all.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

Why does Scotland have to be the front line of the increasingly silly culture war ?

Loads of countries have legislation like this. JK Rowling broke the law in several European countries recently, notably Germany, when she denied the holocaust targeted transgender people. Where did you get the idea Scotland is on the front line of this?

[Theyellowbox]

24 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

It’d be a more convincing position for building on Devolution if these daft c***s weren’t getting themselves tied up with this, bottle deposits, an inability to deal with drug deaths and ferry procurement. 

But hey ho, independence first and suddenly all the latent potential in this country will magically be unleashed. And these trivialities will all be forgotten. 

And yet you are conflating certain political parties with independence. All legitimate concerns and arguably reasons not to re elect the same shower. However, because you or I might think they are daft c***s, it actually makes the argument stronger. If we both felt strongly enough, we can vote them out and effect change in policy in an independent Scotland. Flip it the other way. Say a UK government brought this legislation in (with no devolved powers) and every single person in Scotland opposed it. Provided ruk wanted it kept, we'd be stuck with it. As it is, if the majority of Scotland could vote for parties who oppose it and it'd be gone after the next election....

It's almost as if democracy works better when the public have proportionatly more say in things which impact them. Who knew....

[lichtgilphead]

Given Murdo Fraser's views on recording unsubstantiated criminal accusations against himself, can he assure us that he doesn't record any enquiries from his constituents that relate to civil law matters or to criminal complaints that are either unsubstantiated or that do not lead to prosecution?

How does he keep track of these matters if he doesn't record them?

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Peil said:

If it's being recorded and kept on file, surely it'll show up in an enhanced disclosure?

If not I've misunderstood

 

2 hours ago, Peil said:

So, it's possible that it may impact someone, even if the complaint is dismissed?

My understanding is that the details are revealed and it's the department/whoever to make a decision based on that report. Doesn't that mean you could have someone negatively impacted by social work or whatever assuming you're racist/transphobic etc. and they'd rather not risk placing a child with you as a foster carer ( for example)

 

1 hour ago, Peil said:

That's been my understanding with enhanced checks, particularly since the Soham murders. The default position is record everything and don't dare delete it, less the papers find out and blame some social worker. 

First of all, there are three levels of disclosure checks - basic, standard and enhanced - and PVG checks are another thing again.

For enhanced disclosure checks the police would reveal unspent cautions, spent convictions where they are relevant and - the bit of interest here - other "relevant information". It has to be relevant to the request.

Enhanced disclosure checks can only be requested by accredited bodies on the register for the purposes of adoption or gaming and lottery licences. That's it. No other circumstances.

If someone made a complaint the police found to be baseless, like in your example, it wouldn't be relevant to any check. If there was something in it but a decision was taken not to proceed, for whatever reason, then it could be considered relevant.

Section 33 of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 sets out the considerations for what should be considered as relevant. You get to see what will be disclosed before whoever requested it sees it and you can appeal. If you're not happy with the appeal outcome you can appeal to the independent reviewer, and on a point of law you can appeal their decisions to the Sheriff Court.

As you say, if you tweet something racist that COPFS decided not charge you with then that might be relevant if you're being considered for adoption of a minority ethnic child. It's hard to see any other circumstances.

And critically, the new hate crime legislation changes absolutely nothing about this.

As for PVG checks, that's for working with children or vulnerable adults. If you're applying for a role your information is not revealed to the organisation who want it - it's revealed to you, the individual that applied for your own record. Depending on the type of job and application, that could include "relevant information" as above. But you don't ever have to share it with the organisation, you can always withdraw your application while an issue is sorted out.

The only complication comes if you're already working with children or vulnerable adults and something happens. In that case, they will only inform your employer/ regulatory body if they are considering adding you to the lists or people banned from working with protected groups, or if they have done so immediately. There is simply no chance that this could happen just because someone complained about something you tweeted or said and the police took no action.

And again, the new hate crime legislation doesn't change this either.

People with their own agendas are preying on fears about all this stuff, but it's totally baseless. 

[Richey Edwards]

Look at the date it "came into effect". Clearly not real.